Introduction
The focus on clean technology has increased over the past decade, as it is seen as a potential solution to address the risks to human health and the environment caused by climate change.Footnote 1 In 2016, Canada and 194 other countries ratified the Paris Agreement, a legally binding international treaty to fight climate change. Its goal is to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius in comparison to pre-industrial levels, through a long-term reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.Footnote 2 As outlined in A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy, the Government of Canada has identified a target of 40 to 45% reduction in the 2005 level of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, as well as a goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.Footnote 3 Amongst the many major research and development (R&D) initiatives launched by the Government of Canada towards supporting these goals is the National Research Council of Canada (NRC)'s Materials for Clean Fuels Challenge program. This 7-year, $57-million research program, being undertaken in collaboration with Canadian and international academic and industry leaders, aims at driving development of new and disruptive technologies to decarbonize Canada's economy, including critical but hard-to-decarbonize industries such as the oil and gas and petrochemical sectors. Two of the most critical research thrusts for this program are:Footnote 4
- Hydrogen (H2) production for industry, hereafter referred to as H2 production.
- Converting carbon-dioxide (CO2) into something useful, hereafter referred to as CO2 conversion.
In this blog, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) presents the Canadian and global patenting trends for the 2 research thrusts over a 20-year timeframe (2001–2020). This study uses patents as a proxy for innovation to assist the NRC in determining which sub-technologies could gain industrial momentum in the future and therefore benefit investments.
Dataset
The patent search strategy for this study was developed by a patent examiner at CIPO in consultation with subject-matter experts at the NRC.Footnote 5 Aggregating the output from this search strategy reveals that institutions worldwide have patented close to 4,000 inventions for H2 production between 2001 and 2020.Footnote 6 In contrast, patenting activity for CO2 conversion was significantly lower with 623 patented inventions during this timeframe. Canadian institutions accounted for approximately 2 to 3% of these patented invention counts for both research thrusts.
Figure 1 - Text version
Figure 1 consists of 2 inverted triangles. The first triangle shows the breakdown of the patent dataset for H2 production. The top section shows that worldwide patented inventions for hydrogen production were 4,693. The middle section shows that worldwide patented inventions for hydrogen production attributable to an organization were 3,986, for 1,117 organizations. The bottom section shows that Canadian patented inventions for hydrogen production attributable to a Canadian organization numbered 73, for 36 Canadian organizations.
The second triangle shows the breakdown of the patent dataset for CO2 conversion The top section shows that worldwide patented inventions for carbon dioxide conversion numbered 771. The middle section shows that worldwide patented inventions for carbon dioxide conversion attributable to an organization were 623, for 349 organizations. The bottom section shows that Canadian patented inventions for carbon dioxide conversion attributable to a Canadian organization were 19, for 9 Canadian organizations.
Patenting trend
Between 2001 and 2020, worldwide patented inventions for CO2 conversion grew significantly, peaking in 2019. In contrast, worldwide patented inventions pertaining to H2 production, albeit more numerous than CO2 conversion, remained relatively steady. As a result, CO2 conversion appears as a more emerging research thrust compared to H2 production in more recent years; however, the overall patented invention count suggests that H2 production is a relatively more mature area of research worldwide. For Canadian institutions, patented inventions for both research thrusts do not seem to show any particular overarching trend. Experts in the field concur that this is largely correct, while also cautioning that the sub-thrust of low-carbon H2 production is an area of intense innovation activity, including among Canadian institutions.
Figure 2.1 - Text version
| Application year | Worldwide patented inventions | Canadian patented inventions |
|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 189 | 6 |
| 2002 | 257 | 4 |
| 2003 | 216 | 3 |
| 2004 | 186 | 3 |
| 2005 | 192 | 2 |
| 2006 | 234 | 5 |
| 2007 | 217 | 2 |
| 2008 | 185 | 0 |
| 2009 | 220 | 3 |
| 2010 | 174 | 2 |
| 2011 | 175 | 4 |
| 2012 | 208 | 3 |
| 2013 | 226 | 4 |
| 2014 | 187 | 8 |
| 2015 | 180 | 7 |
| 2016 | 201 | 5 |
| 2017 | 171 | 3 |
| 2018 | 187 | 2 |
| 2019 | 191 | 4 |
| 2020 | 190 | 3 |
Figure 2.2 - Text version
| Application year | Worldwide patented inventions | Canadian patented inventions |
|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 8 | 1 |
| 2002 | 10 | 1 |
| 2003 | 3 | 0 |
| 2004 | 11 | 0 |
| 2005 | 10 | 1 |
| 2006 | 25 | 1 |
| 2007 | 22 | 0 |
| 2008 | 23 | 2 |
| 2009 | 36 | 1 |
| 2010 | 43 | 1 |
| 2011 | 42 | 0 |
| 2012 | 42 | 1 |
| 2013 | 48 | 0 |
| 2014 | 47 | 2 |
| 2015 | 39 | 1 |
| 2016 | 45 | 0 |
| 2017 | 32 | 1 |
| 2018 | 30 | 0 |
| 2019 | 59 | 5 |
| 2020 | 48 | 1 |
Globally, Japan leads in terms of patented inventions pertaining to H2 production, while the United States is the leader for CO2 conversion. Canada and several European economies gain prominence after taking into consideration the size of their respective economies.Footnote 7
Figure 3.1 - Text version
Figure 3.1 is a world map highlighting different countries based on their patent activity in H2 production, adjusted for GDP. Countries are shaded in varying intensities of colour, with darker shades indicating higher levels of patent output relative to their GDP. The top 3 countries with the highest levels of patent activity in H2 production, adjusted for GDP, are Denmark, Japan, and the Netherlands.
| Country of origin | Patented inventions per trillion GDP |
|---|---|
| Australia | 1.033 |
| Austria | 0.681 |
| Belgium | 0.254 |
| Brazil | 0.559 |
| Canada | 1.859 |
| Chile | 0.376 |
| China | 3.449 |
| Colombia | 0.282 |
| Cyprus | 5.748 |
| Denmark | 11.731 |
| Finland | 0.845 |
| France | 3.193 |
| Germany | 3.394 |
| Iceland | 3.783 |
| India | 0.836 |
| Ireland | 0.233 |
| Israel | 1.42 |
| Italy | 0.77 |
| Japan | 8.392 |
| Luxembourg | 2.617 |
| Malaysia | 1.026 |
| Mexico | 0.129 |
| Netherlands | 7.253 |
| New Zealand | 0.661 |
| Norway | 1.187 |
| Poland | 0.183 |
| Russia | 0.597 |
| Saudi Arabia | 4.968 |
| Singapore | 0.548 |
| South Africa | 0.366 |
| South Korea | 5.635 |
| Spain | 0.068 |
| Sweden | 0.433 |
| Switzerland | 3.093 |
| Ukraine | 0.869 |
| United Arab Emirates | 0.189 |
| United Kingdom | 0.955 |
| United States | 2.248 |
| Venezuela | 0.618 |
Figure 3.2 - Text version
Figure 3.2 is a world map highlighting different countries based on their patent activity CO2 production, adjusted for GDP. Countries are shaded in varying intensities of colour, with darker shades indicating higher levels of patent output relative to their GDP. The top 3 countries with the highest levels of patent activity in CO2 production, adjusted for GDP, are Iceland, Denmark, and New Zealand.
| Country of origin | Patented inventions per trillion GDP |
|---|---|
| Australia | 0.188 |
| Canada | 0.585 |
| China | 0.625 |
| Denmark | 3.139 |
| Finland | 0.254 |
| France | 0.266 |
| Germany | 0.965 |
| Iceland | 3.201 |
| India | 0.189 |
| Israel | 0.629 |
| Italy | 0.182 |
| Japan | 0.140 |
| Mexico | 0.238 |
| Netherlands | 0.897 |
| New Zealand | 0.992 |
| Pakistan | 0.317 |
| Poland | 0.114 |
| Russia | 0.231 |
| Saudi Arabia | 0.937 |
| South Africa | 0.777 |
| South Korea | 0.543 |
| Switzerland | 0.516 |
| United Kingdom | 0.210 |
| United States | 0.582 |
Taking a closer look to Canada, the province of Saskatchewan has the highest patenting intensity for H2 production after taking into account the size of its economy. In second and third place respectively, British Columbia and Alberta also have among the highest patenting intensities for both the research thrusts. In attempting to identify "innovation hotspots" in Canada, figure 4.2 reveals that institutions linked to H2 production patented inventions are fairly well distributed among prominent census metropolitan areas (CMA). Calgary and the Ottawa-Gatineau CMAs have the highest concentration of institutions for patented inventions related to CO2 conversion. However, given the low institution count associated with these CMAs, it would be premature to label them as innovation hotspots.Footnote 8
| Province | Patented inventions per trillion GDP |
|---|---|
| Saskatchewan | 3.517 |
| British Columbia | 2.936 |
| Alberta | 2.820 |
| Ontario | 1.652 |
| Quebec | 0.619 |
| Census metropolitan area (CMA) | Institution count |
|---|---|
| Calgary | 9 |
| Toronto | 6 |
| Vancouver | 5 |
| Montreal | 2 |
| Ottawa-Gatineau | 1 |
| Regina | 1 |
| Edmonton | 1 |
| Sherbrooke | 1 |
| London | 1 |
| Hamilton | 1 |
| Canadian provinces | Patented inventions per trillion GDP |
|---|---|
| British Columbia | 0.979 |
| Alberta | 0.705 |
| Ontario | 0.629 |
| Census metropolitan area (CMA) | Institution count |
|---|---|
| Calgary | 3 |
| Ottawa-Gatineau | 2 |
| Vancouver | 1 |
| Toronto | 1 |
| Kingston | 1 |
Leading institutions
Figures 5.1 and 5.2 present the leading institutions within the examined datasets in this study for both research thrusts. From these figures, it is evident that the leaders in patenting primarily belonging to the energy sector.
Figure 5.1 - Text version
| Institution name | Patented inventions |
|---|---|
| Nippon Oil Corporation, JP | 143 |
| Idemitsu Kosan Co. Ltd., JP | 96 |
| Air Products And Chemicals Inc., US | 87 |
| Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation, JP | 85 |
| Shell Internationale Research Maatschappij B.V, NL | 82 |
| Tokyo Gas Co. Ltd., JP | 78 |
| Panasonic Corporation, JP | 76 |
| Haldor Topsoe Chemical Equipment A/S, DK | 69 |
| Toyota Jidosha K.K., JP | 69 |
| Air Liquide, FR | 65 |
Figure 5.2 - Text version
| Institution name | Patented inventions |
|---|---|
| University Of Southern California, US | 25 |
| Haldor Topsoe AS, DK | 18 |
| Shell Internationale Research Maatschappij B.V., NL | 16 |
| Sabic Global Technologies B.V, NL | 13 |
| Xyleco Inc, US | 11 |
| CCP Technology GmbH, DE | 10 |
| Linde Aktiengesellschaft, DE | 9 |
| Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, DE | 9 |
| Mitsubishi Hitachi Power Systems Europe GmbH, DE | 8 |
| Lummus Technology LLC, US | 8 |
Figures 6.1 and 6.2 list the Canadian institutions identified as leading filers globally. Interestingly, some institutions have patented in both research thrusts, such as Iogen Corporation and the Canadian division of Shell International.
Figure 6.1 - Text version
| Institution name | Patented inventions |
|---|---|
| Iogen Corporation (ON) | 9 |
| Expander Energy Inc. (AB) | 6 |
| Carbon Engineering Ltd. (BC) | 6 |
| Greenfield Global Inc. (ON) | 6 |
| Shell Canada Limited (AB) | 5 |
| University Of Regina (SK) | 5 |
| Sulvaris Inc. (AB) | 4 |
| Questair Technologies Inc (BC) | 3 |
| Hydro-Québec (QC) | 2 |
| Texaco Inc (ON) | 2 |
Figure 6.2 - Text version
| Institution name | Patented inventions |
|---|---|
| Greencentre Canada (ON) | 10 |
| Shell Canada Limited (AB) | 9 |
| Iogen Corporation (ON) | 9 |
| ISCA Management Ltd (BC) | 8 |
| Queen's University at Kingston (ON) | 8 |
Collaboration among institutions is often found to be beneficial in developing a more commercially viable product, since each institution can work to their individual strengths.Footnote 9 In figures 7.1 and 7.2, cross-collaborations were identified within the examined patent dataset that involves at least one Canadian institution. Across both research thrusts, Canadian academic institutions have collaborated with institutions of varying nature: international academic institutions (Georgia Tech Research Foundation), government crown corporations (Hydro-Québec) and medium and large enterprises (General Electric Company; Greencentre Canada). A contributing factor could be the in-house expertise available to conduct industry relevant research at these academic institutions.
Figure 7.1 - Text version
Figure 7.1 is a collaboration map for H2 production. This map shows the H2 production collaborations identified using the patent dataset that involve at least one Canadian institution. The pink node indicates the number of collaborative patents, and the vertices connected to them represent institutions which have been identified as joint applicants for the patented inventions. Canadian institutions are highlighted in red while foreign institutions are highlighted in blue.
These are the collaborations observed for H2 production:
- The Canadian institutions University of Montreal and Hydro-Québec collaborated for 1 patented invention.
- The Canadian institution Shell Canada Limited and the international institution Shell Internationale Research Maatschappij B.V (NL) collaborated for 4 patented inventions.
- The Canadian institution IOGEN Corporation and the international institution IOGEN Corporation (US) collaborated for 1 patented invention.
- The Canadian institution Sulvaris Inc. and the international institution Beijing Zhongliansheng Chemical Engineering Co. Ltd. (CN) collaborated for 1 patented invention.
- The Canadian institution University of Alberta (AB) and the international institution General Electric Company (US) collaborated for 1 patented invention.
Figure 7.2 - Text version
Figure 7.2 is a collaboration map for CO2 conversion. This map shows the collaborations identified using the patent dataset that involve at least one Canadian institution. The pink node indicates the number of collaborative patents, and the vertices connected to them represent institutions which have been identified as joint applicants for the patented inventions. Canadian institutions are highlighted in red while foreign institutions are highlighted in blue.
The following are the collaborations observed for CO2 conversion:
- The Canadian institutions GreenCentre Canada, and Queen's University at Kingston collaborated for 2 patented inventions.
- The Canadian institution Queen's University at Kingston and the international institution Georgia Tech Research Corporation (US) collaborated for 1 patented invention.
Global patent landscape
To better understand the sub-technologies that are gaining industrial momentum at the global level, figures 8.1 and 8.2 present a visual picture using patent landscape mapping. This type of map extracts prominent word sequences (i.e. sub-technologies) from the descriptive text fields of the patent documents. Sections of these topographic maps are comprised of peaks (white mountains) and oceans (turquoise water). Peaks represent the highest concentration of patented inventions, which are labelled with key terms that tie common themes together. On the other hand, oceans are used to separate terms that share no commonality. The analysis revealed that patented inventions by Canadian institutions for H2 production are largely centered around the "ALUMINUM" and "RICH STREAM" themes. In this context, "RICH STREAM" refers to the capture of CO2 generated by the process of producing hydrogen from fossil fuel sources. "ALUMINUM" likely relates to an emerging method in which aluminum is used to generate hydrogen from water. No common theme was identified for patented inventions by Canadian institutions for CO2 conversion due to their relatively lower patenting intensity.
Figure 8.1 - Text version
Figure 8.1 consists of a patent landscape map for H2 production. A patent landscape map is one that provides a visual representation of global patent activities in dataset in this report. Derwent Innovation's ThemeScape mapping tool was utilized to produce this visualization, using term frequency (keywords from a patents title and abstract) and other algorithms to cluster documents based on shared language. The result is a patent landscape map, a map very much resembling that of a topographic map, where there are sections of turquoise and white. Sections are comprised of peaks, some of which have bright white peaks, representing the highest concentration of patents and are labelled with key terms that tie common themes together. Turquoise is used to separate terms where there is no commonality between them.
Broad themes written in all capital letters for H2 production include: aluminium; photocatalyst; material supply device; cell electric power generation system; oxidation device; situ treatment; rich stream; compact fuel processor; conversion furnace; catalyst tube.
Prominent word sequences for H2 production include: aluminum, nickel, oxide; oxide, support, metal; preparation method, drying, hour; biomass, gasification, presence; photocatalyst, splitting, water splitting; ion, power, generation; film, hole, surface; fuel cell, cell, fuel cell system; reformer, fuel reformer, fuel cell; steam generation, electricity generation, gas production apparatus; power, electric power, load; monoxide, carbon monoxide, JPO; carbon, electrode, pyrolysis; oil, fraction, pressure; pyrolysis product, situ treatment, kerogen; stream, carbon dioxide, dioxide; heat exchange, exchange, feedstock; synthesis gas, carbon dioxide, dioxide; carbon, carbon monoxide, monoxide; energy, generation, heat; plate, channel, reformer; tube, heat, flow; heat, mixture, reformer; adsorption, pressure, swing adsorption; layer, catalyst layer, JPO; chamber, reaction chamber, stream; stream, feed stream, product stream; stream, nitrogen, gas stream; feedstock, carbon monoxide, monoxide; fuel processor, processor, rich gas; engine, reformer, combustion engine; furnace, pipeline, connected; carbon dioxide, dioxide, feedstock.
Figure 8.2 - Text version
Figure 8.2 consists of a patent landscape map for CO2 conversion. A patent landscape map is one that provides a visual representation of global patent activities in dataset in this report. Derwent Innovation's ThemeScape mapping tool was utilized to produce this visualization, using term frequency (keywords from a patents title and abstract) and other algorithms to cluster documents based on shared language. The result is a patent landscape map, a map very much resembling that of a topographic map, where there are sections of turquoise and white. Sections are comprised of peaks, some of which have bright white peaks, representing the highest concentration of patents and are labelled with key terms that tie common themes together. Turquoise is used to separate terms where there is no commonality between them.
Broad themes written in all capital letters for CO2 conversion include: hydrocarbon converter; synthesis gas stream; gas scrub; urea synthesis stage; transportation material; electric; oxygen outlet; incorporated; stirring; temperature fat absorbent feed; presence of water; oxidative coupling.
Prominent word sequences for CO2 conversion include: carbon monoxide of the carbon dioxide converter, carbon dioxide converter, dioxide converter; synthetic hydrocarbon, source material, production of methanol; stream, gas stream, product stream; feed, steam, feedstock; potassium, catalytic reactor, feeding; power plant flue gas treatment system, steam cycle, blast furnace gas; enzyme, time, light; ammonia, urea, nitrogen; inlet, exchanger, heat exchanger; temperature, efficiency, heat; energy, plant, power; effluent gas mixture, combustion gas mixture stream, atomized liquid droplet; catalyst composition, presence, magnetic strength; photocatalyst, light, reduction; form methanol, disadvantage, transportation material; preparation method, solution, copper; ion, solution, ligand; halide, anolyte, electrical potential; support, ruthenium, metal; cell, reduction, solution; metal, efficiency, reduction; oxide, pressure, temperature; particle, diameter, heat treatment; electrolyser, electricity, electric; cellulosic, acetogen, carboxylic acid salt; oxidative coupling, coupling, ethylene; carbon, waste, emission; presence of water, amidine, contact; selectivity, styrene, ethylbenzene; biomass steam vessel.
Conclusion
Overall, the patent activity for H2 production and CO2 conversion could be seen as a promising sign towards the adoption of clean technologies and sustainability as a whole. Given the flat growth coupled with the higher volume of patented inventions at the global level, the study suggests that H2 production is a relatively more mature research thrust from an innovation standpoint, whereas CO2 conversion is still emerging due to its momentum and growth over time.
Unsurprisingly, institutions from larger economies, such as the United States and China are among the leaders in both research thrusts at the global level. Canada remains a notable contributor given its smaller economy, with many of its patented inventions concentrated in Western Canada. The NRC's Challenge program is expected to further encourage Canadian innovation to help the environment, building on the substantial contributions already demonstrated by Canadian institutions.
Annex A – Methodology
The term "patented inventions" refers to the priority patent applications within an INPADOC patent family, a collection of similar patent applications filed across multiple jurisdictions. For this study, priority applications that were filed between 2001 and 2020 were considered. Patented inventions are classified using a set of International Patent Classification (IPC) and Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) codes on the basis of the technology areas to which they are related. In order to form the patent search strategy for this study, a patent examiner at CIPO, in consultation with the NRC, has identified a list of IPCs, CPCs and keywords. For a copy of the complete patent search strategy, please contact cipo-ipresearch-opic-recherchepi@ised-isde.gc.ca.
While expert review of the outputs of the conducted analysis and the conclusions reached suggests that this approach can be of illustrative value, it also suggests some limitations that should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results. Most notably:
- Establishing trends based on limited data
Due to the low patenting activity by Canadian institutions identified for the 2 research thrusts analyzed in this study, the validity of trends extracted should be carefully considered. While many of the trends identified are almost at par with the expectations of the experts at the NRC, the validity of some trends is not clear. This challenge is compounded by the fact that, while some institutions cited in the study patent quite prolifically, other institutions known to be equally innovative do not patent with such regularity, thereby potentially distorting the results. - Differentiating the focus of patents in closely related areas
In reviewing the results of this analysis, it is evident that some patents were incorrectly categorized as focusing on H2 production rather than CO2 conversion. This is not surprising as CO2 conversion in this context is generally related to combining H2 with CO2, specifically with H2 produced from low-carbon emitting processes. Consequently, many CO2 conversion patented inventions specifically reference low-carbon H2 production in their preamble as a part of the process of creating low-CO2 products. Differentiating whether the core technology in a patented invention is H2 production or CO2 conversion is therefore challenging even with a sophisticated keyword-based search. - Differentiating emerging and declining areas of innovation in a given area
As pointed out in this study, while CO2 conversion is an emerging area of technology, conventional H2 production is relatively more mature (e.g. via steam-methane reforming). As a result, it would not be surprising if patenting activity in conventional H2 production were declining. Furthermore, low-carbon H2 production is perceived to be considerably more an emerging technology, with intense and increasing innovation activity in Canada and internationally. However, distinguishing patent activity in these areas with a keyword search is challenging since patented inventions in low-carbon H2 production will naturally include language associated with conventional H2 production in order to compare and contrast the new invention.